2
|
Fernando SA, Pang S, McKew GL, Phan T, Merlino J, Coombs GW, Gottlieb T. Evaluation of the Haemophilus influenzae EUCAST and CLSI disc diffusion methods to recognize aminopenicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother 2021; 75:2594-2598. [PMID: 32585694 DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkaa229] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2019] [Revised: 03/22/2020] [Accepted: 04/30/2020] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Implementation of EUCAST susceptibility testing in an Australian hospital laboratory demonstrated higher rates of aminopenicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate resistance in Haemophilus influenzae than previously recognized. This study aimed to better define the variability in the detection of β-lactam resistance based on EUCAST and CLSI disc diffusion (DD) methodology, by comparison with the recommended reference method, broth microdilution (BMD), and by concordance with genomic analysis. METHODS A total of 100 random H. influenzae isolates were assessed for ampicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate susceptibility by EUCAST and CLSI DD and BMD. WGS was used to analyse the ftsI gene of a subset of isolates with β-lactam resistance, other than that due to isolated β-lactamase production. RESULTS Of the 100 isolates, 32 were categorized as either β-lactamase negative, ampicillin resistant (BLNAR) (n = 18) or β-lactamase positive, amoxicillin/clavulanate resistant (BLPACR) (n = 14) by EUCAST DD. All 18 EUCAST BLNAR isolates were genotypically confirmed by WGS. Five of 18 BLNAR isolates were concordant by CLSI DD, 12 by EUCAST BMD and 4 by CLSI BMD. Nine of 14 EUCAST BLPACR isolates were confirmed by WGS; the remaining 5 were 1 mm below the EUCAST DD breakpoint. Only one isolate was detected as BLPACR by CLSI DD. Group III mutations associated with high-level ampicillin resistance were identified in 10/32 isolates. CONCLUSIONS The EUCAST DD susceptibility method is more reliable than either CLSI or BMD for the detection of genotypically defined BLNAR resistance. However, accurate categorization of amoxicillin/clavulanate resistance remains problematic. Continuous and reproducible surveillance of resistance is needed; for this to be possible, robust susceptibility methods are required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S A Fernando
- Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - S Pang
- Antimicrobial Resistance and Infectious Diseases Laboratory, School of Veterinary Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.,PathWest Laboratory Medicine WA, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia
| | - G L McKew
- Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, Australia.,University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - T Phan
- Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - J Merlino
- Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - G W Coombs
- Antimicrobial Resistance and Infectious Diseases Laboratory, School of Veterinary Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.,PathWest Laboratory Medicine WA, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia
| | - T Gottlieb
- Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, Australia.,University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Haifer C, Kelly CR, Paramsothy S, Andresen D, Papanicolas LE, McKew GL, Borody TJ, Kamm M, Costello SP, Andrews JM, Begun J, Chan HT, Connor S, Ghaly S, Johnson PD, Lemberg DA, Paramsothy R, Redmond A, Sheorey H, van der Poorten D, Leong RW. Australian consensus statements for the regulation, production and use of faecal microbiota transplantation in clinical practice. Gut 2020; 69:801-810. [PMID: 32047093 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-320260] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2019] [Revised: 12/17/2019] [Accepted: 12/27/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has proved to be an extremely effective treatment for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, and there is interest in its potential application in other gastrointestinal and systemic diseases. However, the recent death and episode of septicaemia following FMT highlights the need for further appraisal and guidelines on donor evaluation, production standards, treatment facilities and acceptable clinical indications. DESIGN For these consensus statements, a 24-member multidisciplinary working group voted online and then convened in-person, using a modified Delphi approach to formulate and refine a series of recommendations based on best evidence and expert opinion. Invitations to participate were directed to Australian experts, with an international delegate assisting the development. The following issues regarding the use of FMT in clinical practice were addressed: donor selection and screening, clinical indications, requirements of FMT centres and future directions. Evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. RESULTS Consensus was reached on 27 statements to provide guidance on best practice in FMT. These include: (1) minimum standards for donor screening with recommended clinical selection criteria, blood and stool testing; (2) accepted routes of administration; (3) clinical indications; (4) minimum standards for FMT production and requirements for treatment facilities acknowledging distinction between single-site centres (eg, hospital-based) and stool banks; and (5) recommendations on future research and product development. CONCLUSIONS These FMT consensus statements provide comprehensive recommendations around the production and use of FMT in clinical practice with relevance to clinicians, researchers and policy makers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Craig Haifer
- The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Colleen R Kelly
- Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
| | - Sudarshan Paramsothy
- The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - David Andresen
- The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Lito E Papanicolas
- South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Genevieve L McKew
- The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Thomas J Borody
- Centre for Digestive Diseases, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Michael Kamm
- St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Samuel P Costello
- The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville, South Australia, Australia
- BiomeBank, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Jane M Andrews
- Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Jakob Begun
- The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- Mater Hospital Brisbane, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | | | - Susan Connor
- Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Simon Ghaly
- St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Paul Dr Johnson
- The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Daniel A Lemberg
- University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Sydney Children's Hospital Randwick, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | | | - Andrew Redmond
- The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | | | - David van der Poorten
- The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Rupert W Leong
- The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Tong SYC, Lye DC, Yahav D, Sud A, Robinson JO, Nelson J, Archuleta S, Roberts MA, Cass A, Paterson DL, Foo H, Paul M, Guy SD, Tramontana AR, Walls GB, McBride S, Bak N, Ghosh N, Rogers BA, Ralph AP, Davies J, Ferguson PE, Dotel R, McKew GL, Gray TJ, Holmes NE, Smith S, Warner MS, Kalimuddin S, Young BE, Runnegar N, Andresen DN, Anagnostou NA, Johnson SA, Chatfield MD, Cheng AC, Fowler VG, Howden BP, Meagher N, Price DJ, van Hal SJ, O’Sullivan MVN, Davis JS. Effect of Vancomycin or Daptomycin With vs Without an Antistaphylococcal β-Lactam on Mortality, Bacteremia, Relapse, or Treatment Failure in Patients With MRSA Bacteremia: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2020; 323:527-537. [PMID: 32044943 PMCID: PMC7042887 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.0103] [Citation(s) in RCA: 138] [Impact Index Per Article: 34.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia is associated with mortality of more than 20%. Combining standard therapy with a β-lactam antibiotic has been associated with reduced mortality, although adequately powered randomized clinical trials of this intervention have not been conducted. OBJECTIVE To determine whether combining an antistaphylococcal β-lactam with standard therapy is more effective than standard therapy alone in patients with MRSA bacteremia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted at 27 hospital sites in 4 countries from August 2015 to July 2018 among 352 hospitalized adults with MRSA bacteremia. Follow-up was complete on October 23, 2018. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomized to standard therapy (intravenous vancomycin or daptomycin) plus an antistaphylococcal β-lactam (intravenous flucloxacillin, cloxacillin, or cefazolin) (n = 174) or standard therapy alone (n = 178). Total duration of therapy was determined by treating clinicians and the β-lactam was administered for 7 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was a 90-day composite of mortality, persistent bacteremia at day 5, microbiological relapse, and microbiological treatment failure. Secondary outcomes included mortality at days 14, 42, and 90; persistent bacteremia at days 2 and 5; acute kidney injury (AKI); microbiological relapse; microbiological treatment failure; and duration of intravenous antibiotics. RESULTS The data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination of the study prior to enrollment of 440 patients because of safety. Among 352 patients randomized (mean age, 62.2 [SD, 17.7] years; 121 women [34.4%]), 345 (98%) completed the trial. The primary end point was met by 59 (35%) with combination therapy and 68 (39%) with standard therapy (absolute difference, -4.2%; 95% CI, -14.3% to 6.0%). Seven of 9 prespecified secondary end points showed no significant difference. For the combination therapy vs standard therapy groups, all-cause 90-day mortality occurred in 35 (21%) vs 28 (16%) (difference, 4.5%; 95% CI, -3.7% to 12.7%); persistent bacteremia at day 5 was observed in 19 of 166 (11%) vs 35 of 172 (20%) (difference, -8.9%; 95% CI, -16.6% to -1.2%); and, excluding patients receiving dialysis at baseline, AKI occurred in 34 of 145 (23%) vs 9 of 145 (6%) (difference, 17.2%; 95% CI, 9.3%-25.2%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with MRSA bacteremia, addition of an antistaphylococcal β-lactam to standard antibiotic therapy with vancomycin or daptomycin did not result in significant improvement in the primary composite end point of mortality, persistent bacteremia, relapse, or treatment failure. Early trial termination for safety concerns and the possibility that the study was underpowered to detect clinically important differences in favor of the intervention should be considered when interpreting the findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02365493.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steven Y. C. Tong
- Victorian Infectious Disease Service, Royal Melbourne Hospital, and University of Melbourne at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Northern Territory, Australia
| | - David C. Lye
- National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore
- Institute of Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
- Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
| | - Dafna Yahav
- Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Hospital, Petah Tikva, Israel
- Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Archana Sud
- Nepean Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia
| | - J. Owen Robinson
- Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
- Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia
- Pathwest Laboratory Medicine WA, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia
- Antimicrobial Resistance and Infectious Diseases Research Laboratory, School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Jane Nelson
- Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Northern Territory, Australia
| | - Sophia Archuleta
- Division of Infectious Diseases, National University Hospital, Singapore
- Department of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Matthew A. Roberts
- Australasian Kidney Trials Network, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia
| | - Alan Cass
- Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Northern Territory, Australia
| | - David L. Paterson
- Centre for Clinical Research, University of Queensland, Herston, Australia
| | - Hong Foo
- Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, NSW Health Pathology, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Mical Paul
- Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
- Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
| | - Stephen D. Guy
- Footscray Hospital, Western Health, Footscray, Victoria, Australia
| | | | - Genevieve B. Walls
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Stephen McBride
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Narin Bak
- Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Niladri Ghosh
- Wollongong Public Hospital, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Benjamin A. Rogers
- School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
- Monash Infectious Diseases, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Anna P. Ralph
- Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Northern Territory, Australia
- Division of Medicine, Royal Darwin Hospital, Tiwi, Northern Territory, Australia
| | - Jane Davies
- Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Northern Territory, Australia
- Division of Medicine, Royal Darwin Hospital, Tiwi, Northern Territory, Australia
| | - Patricia E. Ferguson
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Blacktown Hospital, Blacktown, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Ravindra Dotel
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Blacktown Hospital, Blacktown, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Westmead Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Genevieve L. McKew
- Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, New South Wales, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Timothy J. Gray
- Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, New South Wales, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Natasha E. Holmes
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Austin Health, Austin Centre for Infection Research, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
| | - Simon Smith
- Cairns Hospital, Cairns, Queensland, Australia
| | - Morgyn S. Warner
- The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville, South Australia, Australia
- University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Shirin Kalimuddin
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
- Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore
| | - Barnaby E. Young
- National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore
- Institute of Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore
| | - Naomi Runnegar
- Infection Management Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- Southern Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - David N. Andresen
- St Vincent’s Public Hospital Sydney, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia
- School of Medicine, University of Notre Dame, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia
| | | | - Sandra A. Johnson
- Victorian Infectious Disease Service, Royal Melbourne Hospital, and University of Melbourne at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Mark D. Chatfield
- Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Northern Territory, Australia
- Centre for Clinical Research, University of Queensland, Herston, Australia
| | - Allen C. Cheng
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Infection Prevention and Healthcare Epidemiology Unit, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Vance G. Fowler
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
- Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Benjamin P. Howden
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Austin Health, Austin Centre for Infection Research, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
- Microbiological Diagnostic Unit Public Health Laboratory, University of Melbourne at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Niamh Meagher
- Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory Epidemiology Unit, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - David J. Price
- Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory Epidemiology Unit, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Sebastiaan J. van Hal
- Department of Microbiology and Infectious Disease, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Matthew V. N. O’Sullivan
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- New South Wales Health Pathology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
| | - Joshua S. Davis
- Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Northern Territory, Australia
- Department of Infectious Diseases, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Henshaw FR, Bolton T, Nube V, Hood A, Veldhoen D, Pfrunder L, McKew GL, Macleod C, McLennan SV, Twigg SM. Topical application of the bee hive protectant propolis is well tolerated and improves human diabetic foot ulcer healing in a prospective feasibility study. J Diabetes Complications 2014; 28:850-7. [PMID: 25239451 DOI: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2014.07.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2014] [Revised: 07/07/2014] [Accepted: 07/30/2014] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
AIMS Propolis is a naturally occurring anti-inflammatory bee derived protectant resin. We have previously reported that topically applied propolis reduces inflammation and improves cutaneous ulcer healing in diabetic rodents. The aim of this study was to determine if propolis shows efficacy in a pilot study of human diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) healing and if it is well tolerated. MATERIALS Serial consenting subjects (n=24) with DFU ≥4 weeks' duration had topical propolis applied at each clinic review for 6 weeks. Post-debridement wound fluid was analyzed for viable bacterial count and pro-inflammatory MMP-9 activity. Ulcer healing data were compared with a matched control cohort of n=84 with comparable DFU treated recently at the same center. RESULTS Ulcer area was reduced by a mean 41% in the propolis group compared with 16% in the control group at week 1 (P<0.001), and by 63 vs. 44% at week 3, respectively (P<0.05). In addition, 10 vs. 2% (P<0.001), then 19 vs. 12% (P<0.05) of propolis treated vs. control ulcers had fully healed by weeks 3 and 7, respectively. Post-debridement wound fluid active MMP-9 was significantly reduced, by 18.1 vs. 2.8% week 3 from baseline in propolis treated ulcers vs. controls (P<0.001), as were bacterial counts (P<0.001). No adverse effects from propolis were reported. CONCLUSIONS Topical propolis is a well-tolerated therapy for wound healing and this pilot in human DFU indicates for the first time that it may enhance wound closure in this setting when applied weekly. A multi-site randomized controlled of topical propolis now appears to be warranted in diabetic foot ulcers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Frances R Henshaw
- Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Diabetes Centre, Department of Endocrinology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - Thyra Bolton
- Diabetes Centre, Department of Endocrinology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - Vanessa Nube
- Diabetes Centre, Department of Endocrinology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - Anita Hood
- Diabetes Centre, Department of Endocrinology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - Danielle Veldhoen
- Diabetes Centre, Department of Endocrinology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - Louise Pfrunder
- Diabetes Centre, Department of Endocrinology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - Genevieve L McKew
- Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Department of Microbiology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - Colin Macleod
- Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Department of Microbiology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - Susan V McLennan
- Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Diabetes Centre, Department of Endocrinology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - Stephen M Twigg
- Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Diabetes Centre, Department of Endocrinology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|